A good summary Jon J

Poirot
your comment on India is a closer shot but I still won't pay it. If any of our brave forecasters had declared that we will have a green revolution but there will be increasing pressure on our agricultural system then I would have been much more impressed.

Sure you can say that the Indian land and water table are under pressure, just as you can say that about Aus, but what does that mean for future agricultural productivity? You could have said exactly the same thing 20-30 years ago, and declared that this cannot possibly go on, only to find that it did go on.

If you want a cause for concern, check out the recent slowdown in the agricultural productivity stats on the ABARES site (at least, I think that's where they are..). Distinct slow down in the past decade. May be just temporary but you never know..

As the capitalist system is entirely dependent on capital accumulation( in the Marxist sense),this renders most of the diagnosis and comment wishful thinking. Leslie

Pericles, many people have offered ways of limiting population in a free society.

They have been:

- increase the wellbeing of developing nations including access to education and a welfare safety net
- don't introduce policies that drive population growth such as Peter Costello's 'one child for each parent and one for the economy' approach
- don't introduce baby bonuses or similar middle class welfare schemes (this can be done in well managed economies without negatively impacting the poor)
- better planned and staged immigration processes with flexibility to adapt to changing requirements

Increasing the population of Australia in large numbers in which 90% of the land is arid and moving billions of people from one land mass to another that cannot hope to cope with the burden is not the solution.

The idea of open borders (worldwide) would only work if there were a uniformity of government and governance.

I know it is not that simple but in the broader global picture, the key is to reduce the dominance of Western influence over world economics and allow developing nations to modernise and share in the spoils. Population growth will take care of itself as a natural consequence of democracy and stability. How to achieve that is not an easy answer.

One of the best books ever written about poverty/population was 'How the Other Half Dies' by Susan George. An oldie but still very relevant today.

Ted Trainer's manna from heaven for me. It goes against the grain for me to agree with anyone 100%, but Ted's dead right. The only thing I'm disappointed about is he's pre-empted me--plagiarised me before I got the chance to write it down!
Capitalism without growth is not capitalism--it cannot be reformed and it cannot be sustained. Capitalism is doomed, though I think a neo-feudalism is more likely than a peaceful transition to socialism. As Marx insisted, revolution always proceeds by its bad side, and the capitalists are not going to throw open the doors voluntarily.
These days power is not only constituted in wealth and castle walls, but also in the power to act pre-emptively. The world's governments will continue on as if there's no tomorrow and the planet's resources are infinite, and their eager constituents will hold-on devoutly too, but the various exigencies--peak oil, economic meltdown, food, water and refugee crises etc.--will quickly erode their confidence and the hegemony the system has relied upon hitherto.
Capitalism was at a similar crisis between the wars (it was fascism then too, btw, and not communism that was the threat), but it was averted by Keynesianism. Since then generations (in the West) have grown up thinking everything's honky-dory, everything's just as God intended. Which is why most people simply cannot take dudes like Ted seriously. He's challenging the only kind of life and world-view they can imagine--sanctioned by God (he's a very partisan God). Anything else is unthinkable. I call it the "Paris Hilton syndrome", though admittedly it's mostly more modest than that.
Modern western hybrid humanity just cannot conceive of life outside the hothouse, without drip-feed. Not their fault, it's all they've ever known. But as Ted points out, that's the future (unless the powers that be opt for a "humane cull", so better toughen up.
Dick Smith can go off and fantasise with Tim Flannery and the other orchids!

Thinkabit,

I hope you're not teaching the children you claim can reason out fatal flaw in the theory of social collapse--i.e. that we cannot grow to 10 million if there is not the food to sustain such a population. I;m afraid that both history and science show numerous cases where in fact this is not the case. History is littered with civilisations that have been at their most numerous and powerful at the moment directly before their collapse. (try reading jared Diamond for evidence) Studies in biology also show that the high point of a colony is reached immediately before precipitous extinction

Now consider that our entire agro-food complex is entirely based on access to petro-chemicals at every stage of production and distribution. We effectively eat oil. There will be more oil for 40 years or so, allowing us to reach UN projected populations of around 10 billion. After that however, no one can be sure just how calamatous the inevitable collapse may be. Do some research and see if you remain so sanguine about our prospects.